Muslim Doctor refuses to give emergency treatment to Christian. Do I really need to go on and on and on with a list. Constitutional rights are NOT absolute. This is like giving people a First Amendment right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater. It’s like giving Second amendment rights permitting someone to walk into my home with a gun.

Hey GOP. Ya know it’s actually OK to give us some people that are, I dunno ... smart.

Conservatives need to ID the nitwits that came up with this idiocy and Primary them. (if they have Primaries in State elections there)

I heard on the radio that former GOP candidates for President, Mitt Romney and John McCain have advised her to veto the bill.

True. And world-famous gay guy George Takai is threatening to destroy the State of Arizona with his awesome economic power. Knowing Brewer, none of that is necessary because she planned on vetoing it the instant she heard that "Freedom" was in the title.

13
posted on 02/26/2014 6:34:01 AM PST
by Cyber Liberty
(H.L. Mencken: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.")

RE: It has nothing to do with gays. Or homosexuals either for that matter. Has anyone actually read it?

And that my friend is the problem right there... it does not explicitly mention gays, therefore, it is SO GENERAL that it could allow discrimination based on race or ethnicity simply because it violates a person’s religion ( whatever it is ).

And that my friend is the problem right there... it does not explicitly mention gays, therefore, it is SO GENERAL that it could allow discrimination based on race or ethnicity simply because it violates a persons religion or conscience ( whatever it is ).

The only exception (So Far) to right of association is racial discrimination which has been written into our laws for many decades.

The premise or precedence this new bill would establish (I think) would be that homosexuality and homosexual rights are on equal footing under the law with racial status.

This of course has already been going on for some time now, with non-discrimination phrases in law which include terms like sexual orientation in the same sentence with race/age/sex. However, Now it looks like we are attempting to give religious beliefs SPECIAL rights... and once you start doing that, then everyone else will demand equal opportunities.

Brewer should veto this, and expressly state why.

People simply do not understand what they are asking for with new (preventative) laws like this.

IN a nutshell, I see it as a redundant law that can ONLY confuse the application of existing law.

The legislative branch needs to STOP reacting to bad judges with BAD law... get rid of the bad judges instead.

21
posted on 02/26/2014 6:42:05 AM PST
by Safrguns
(PM me if you like to play Minecraft!)

Individuals and businesses have every right to discriminate however they want. There's nothing wrong with personal discrimination. Discrimination (freedom to choose) is our God-given right.

State laws requiring segregation of blacks from whites are another matter and are unconstitutional (14th Amendment). The feds have a Constitutional right to interfere with state laws that require segregation of blacks form whites.

However, the feds have no other Constitutional authority to interfere with any other form of discrimination on the state level and the feds have no Constitutional authority to interfere with the God given right of individuals and businesses to exercise their freedom of discrimination (freedom to choose) as they see fit.

And that my friend is the problem right there... it does not explicitly mention gays, therefore, it is SO GENERAL that it could allow discrimination based on race or ethnicity simply because it violates a persons religion or conscience ( whatever it is ).

And why is that a problem? In a truly free country, a private business owner should be able to turn away anybody they want for ANY reason they want, don't like ugly people? don't like fat people? don't like people with green eyes? It's your business, if you would rather lose the business from those people, that's your choice, you should be able to run it as you see fit.

honestly. if a Muslim doctor does not want to care for me in the ER, I don’t think I’d want him forced to. Go find a doctor that wants my money. Because if I die, it’s gonna be REALLY hard for me to write the check.

NO ONE should be forced to do work for someone they don’t want to (unless they are convicted and sent to prison/jail)

Muslim doctor does not want to work on Christians? ok. fire him and find someone who will.

Baker does not want to make a cake with 2 dudes on top, no problem. They can go find someone who will.

I went to a shop to have the plow repaired on my truck. First shop said “we don’t work on that brand” now I could have ran to a judge to force them too, or I could take it to the next place who gladly accepted my money.

it’s not really that hard to figure out.

31
posted on 02/26/2014 6:46:14 AM PST
by cableguymn
(It's time for a second political party.)

A couple of lesbians Harris a NM business owner and take him to court, Arizona tries to preempt and provide harassment protection and lose because the tax exempt, loaded, NFL threatens Brewer pullout from the az Super Bowl. And you’re looking for Cruz to weigh in?!

There’s no winner here. The news media is misrepresenting this and Romney’s weighing in

Though it codifies the right of business owners to refuse service to homosexuals on religious grounds, would it not also let muslim business owners refuse service to, say, military veterans with service dogs, uncovered women, or in general “infidels”? Has that been addressed?

Just trying to look at the whole of the ramifications here.

36
posted on 02/26/2014 6:48:42 AM PST
by ScottinVA
(Obama is so far in over his head, even his ears are beneath the water level.)

RE: Individuals and businesses have every right to discriminate however they want. There’s nothing wrong with personal discrimination.

Actually, I have to disagree. Personal discrimination is sometimes MORALLY WRONG.

For instance, refusing to serve a person simply because he is black is MORALLY WRONG.

The issue however is this — in America and our constitution, is it the government’s job to tell you what is and is not moral?

If you are mean to others, should there be a law that outlaws meanness?

If the answer is no, then based on the fundamental law of this country, we’ll just have to live with the person’s meanness and ostracize him/her PERSONALLY. Why should the bureaucracy insert itself in the situation?

Somebody tell me why invented rights (such as the "right" to stick your pecker in somebody else's poop chute) should trump real constitutional rights such as the first amendment.

Pat Buchanan has it right here: repeal all civil rights legislation and fire the bureaucratic army of enforcers. It served a purpose in the 1960s, maybe even into the 1970s, but the concerns which spawned it no longer exist.

38
posted on 02/26/2014 6:49:10 AM PST
by Vigilanteman
(Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)

RE: Though it codifies the right of business owners to refuse service to homosexuals on religious grounds, would it not also let muslim business owners refuse service to, say, military veterans with service dogs, uncovered women, or in general infidels?

Yes it does. But again, so what?

If a Muslim refuses to service an infidel like me, then so be it. I don’t have to patronize his business.

He has the freedom to associate with whoever he wishes as long as he does not do me personal harm.

you want government to force a private business(like a doctor) to give service to some one? that’s socialism/totalitarianism . a private business is like your home as it is your property (just as this site is) . you have a right to not let anyone into your home even if you advertise for a garage sale. you can kick out anyone out of your home . what you are advocating is empowering government to take over our individual rights . you trust government to make the right decision over a private business owner.

the key battle is between individual rights(right to ownership) and between the growth of government power. if you empower government in any are you lessen our rights and freedom and weaken the right to ownership.

We’ve allowed a loud vocal minority to completely frame the debate. Repubs can’t talk and explain anything so they cave. Would any rational person have an issue with businesses being able to do business with whom they choose regardless of what it is they oppose?

Republicans are so scared of their own shadow, they can’t function. Brewer is gonna hang the conservatives out to dry because she cannot communicate.

Call their bluff, sign the bill, explain the fact that is has to do with business being free to conduct business with whomever they choose and let the chips fall. Boycott your ass off folks.

I agree with your point about giving the Dems and issue, but I’d like to see the Repubs fight something for once. If we are going to flush down the toilet, we may as well go down swimming. The Dems are operating from a house of cards. The vast majority of their positions are MINORITY positions. Take a stand and see if these threats actually happen. The low information voter door can swing both ways. Even the stupidest person on earth can see something wrong with forcing a businessperson to make a cake when they don’t want to. Why can’t the homos see the business opportunity and open a Homo Cake Shop? It’s not about cake. They are subverting freedom.

44
posted on 02/26/2014 6:55:38 AM PST
by my small voice
(A biased media and an uneducated populace is the biggest threat to our nation.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.